IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10371 of 2010(V)
1. M/S.NAIR COAL SERVICES LTD., MUNICIPAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL
For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :26/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.( C) No. 10371 of 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 26th March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved of the stipulation contained in
Ext.P3 issued by the third respondent, whereby the petitioner
has been directed to furnish security in Form 6A in conformity
with Rule 19(2) and 85 of KVAT Rules
2. The sequence of events shows that the petitioner being
aggrieved of penalty orders passed by the first respondent had
filed statutory appeals along with Interlocutory Applications for
stay. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in W.P(C)
No.6540 of 2010, as per Ext. P2 judgment, the condition imposed
by the appellate authority while passing interim roder in I.A. for
stay, as modified by this Court was satisfied by the petitioner by
remitting a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and furnishing Ext. P4 security
bond , which however was rejected by the third respondent vide
Ext. P3, holding that the ‘security bond’ had to be furnished in
‘Form 6A’, which hence forms the subject matter of challenge in
this Writ Petition.
W.P.( C) No. 10371 of 2010
2
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who
submitted that the stipulation imposed by the third respondent is
very much in conformity with the statutory requirements; more
so, when Ext. P4 bond has been executed by the petitioner
alone and that no sureties are there. Going by the statutory
prescriptions, Rule 19(2) contemplates different ways of
providing ‘security deposit’ as prescribed under clauses (a) to
(h). As per clause (d) of Rule 19(2), the security or additional
security shall be furnished by executing a security bond for
such amount in ‘Form No.6’ with two sureties, solvent enough
for the amount assured and acceptable to the said authority.
True, the liability to satisfy the bond under Rule 19 is under a
different circumstance, particularly in connection with the steps
for registration and necessity to provide security deposit or
additional security deposit, as the case may be; whereas the
position under Rule 85 stands on a different pedestal. It appears
that the third respondent was rather concerned only with
‘Form 6A’, as stipulated in Rule 85, though the very same
Rule clearly refers to any of the securities as provided under
W.P.( C) No. 10371 of 2010
3
Rule 19(2) as well. The petitioner is very much entitled to
furnish ‘security’ under Rule 19 (2) (d), i.e. by providing
security bond in ‘Form 6’, with two solvent sureties. The
stipulation contained in Ext.P3, insisting that the petitioner has
to satisfy the security in ‘Form 6A’ itself, is not correct or
sustainable.
3. Accordingly, the stipulation in Ext. P3 is set aside and
the petitioner is permitted to furnish the security in ‘Form 6’ with
two solvent sureties as contemplated under Rule 19(2)(d), so as
to avail the benefit of the interim stay and this shall be satisfied
within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk